What do you think about this strange quote from Karl Kautsky?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

What do you think about this strange quote from Karl Kautsky?

Post by Giuseppe »


Although Jesus usually appears as gentle and submissive, occasionally he says something of a quite different nature which suggests that whether he really existed or is only an imaginary, ideal figure, he lived as a rebel in the original tradition, one who was crucified for his unsuccessful uprising.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsk ... h10.htm#s3

Can someone imagine, assuming the mythicist paradigm, how a mythical Jesus could be conceived originally "as a rebel, one who was crucified for his unsuccessful uprising"?

One would think about the mythical Jesus being allegory of the rebel Israel, crucified by the Romans in 70 CE.

In Paul I can't see a such rebel and mythical Jesus, however. Does this fact raise doubts about the originality of Paul, even assuming a mythicist tradition?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: What do you think about this strange quote from Karl Kautsky?

Post by Giuseppe »

This quote is curious, indeed.

It says us that under both the paradigms, Paul was a lie.
  • If Jesus existed, then he was a seditious rebel and therefore later Paul depoliticized him: Paul was a liar. Reimarus docet.
  • If Jesus didn't exist, then he was the symbol of a collective Rebellion against "Babylon"(=Rome) and therefore later the (entirely false) pauline epistles depoliticized him: "Paul" was a liar. Robert Stahl docet.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: What do you think about this strange quote from Karl Kautsky?

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Perhaps on a mythicist paradigm akin to Thomas Brodie's literary character hypothesis were correct and that he was assembled using the same literary techniques in some early ur-gospel, which then the Synoptics attempt to respond to and redact by reshaping him, though retaining some leftover remains of his rebellious philosophy.

Again, requires a hypothetical document, at which point the theory would have about as much reliability as Ehrman's "hey Q proves Jesus" arguments, but I don't know of any other way, unless we conceptualize some celestial realm where Jesus rebels against celestial Romans and is celestially crucified by celestial Romans when his rebellion fails.

Perhaps another way would be to argue that Jesus' mythos of rebellion stemmed from a mytheme of a failed deity rebellion, such as that of "Morning star" in Isa. 14:12-15 where Athtar (at least that is my hypothesis for the identity of the mythological figure here) attempts to usurp El Elyon, but then fails. Despite some older theories to the contrary, there is no good evidence, imo, of any kind of attempted usurption of El by Baal (I think C. L'Heureux's Rank Among the Canaanite Gods has disproven that thesis rather solidly). As far as I know, it isn't a view accepted by modern Ugaritic scholars.

All of these go well beyond the realm of healthy speculation though and are into sheer conjecture on my part.

If you want to explore that outdated theory more, I'd suggest Ulf Oldenburg, The Conflict Between El and Baal in Canaanite Religion (Brill, 1969) and then C. E. L'Heureux, Rank among the Canaanite Gods, El, Bacal, and the Rephaim (Scholars Press, 1979) which I think shows the methodological faults with it. Oldenburg's thesis is I think the most extensive and well argued of those that were presented.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: What do you think about this strange quote from Karl Kautsky?

Post by Giuseppe »

I think that Stahl's view fits better a mythicism with seditious origins. See here:

viewtopic.php?p=125428#p125428
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: What do you think about this strange quote from Karl Kautsky?

Post by mlinssen »

Chris Hansen wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:32 pm Perhaps on a mythicist paradigm akin to Thomas Brodie's literary character hypothesis were correct and that he was assembled using the same literary techniques in some early ur-gospel, which then the Synoptics attempt to respond to and redact by reshaping him, though retaining some leftover remains of his rebellious philosophy.

Again, requires a hypothetical document, at which point the theory would have about as much reliability as Ehrman's "hey Q proves Jesus" arguments, but I don't know of any other way, unless we conceptualize some celestial realm where Jesus rebels against celestial Romans and is celestially crucified by celestial Romans when his rebellion fails.
The document is not hypothetical, we have it. The so-called gospel of Thomas is polemic from beginning to end. Just for starters, the third saying:

Logion 3
IS said: if they should say it to you, they who go before you: "lo behold, the reign of king in the heaven", Well then the birds will make be first to you of the heaven.
If they should say it to you: "she in the Sea", well then the fishes will make be first to you.
Rather, the reign of king is of your inside and she is of your eye.
Whenever you should know you Then they will know you, and you will understand: yourselves are the children of the living father.
If it befall However you will know you not, well then you are existing in a reign of poor and yourselves are the reign of poor.

Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: What do you think about this strange quote from Karl Kautsky?

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:46 am The so-called gospel of Thomas is polemic from beginning to end.
I read:


The New Testament gives the basic story found in Saying 100 but it extends it quite a bit in a noticeably ideological direction. The most important difference is that the Synoptics (Mark 12:13-17, Matt 22:15-22, Luke 20:22-26) place the question in the mouths of the Pharisees, along with the Herodians, and have them plot how to entrap Jesus in a seditious statement so that the Romans would punish him. They show Jesus as seeing through their "malice" and "hypocrisy" and devising his answer to be a clever response that could not be accused of being seditious. Jesus' answer is also worded differently: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's". And the last part of Thomas 100 is missing, "give me what is mine." Amazingly, the Synoptics succeed in turning Jesus' message on its

Amazingly, the Synoptics succeed in turning Jesus' message on its head: instead of having him give a slyly subversive message that tells people not to pay their taxes, they invert it into its reactionary opposite.

By leaving out Thomas' third part and changing the verb, they make Jesus essentially tell people to respect the authority of the Roman or any state, as long as they also do their religious duties. Christian theologians usually reject attempts by people like Schweitzer to see his answer as ironic and insist, as Sevenster does, that Jesus is being dead serious here: "the coin with its inscription is a symbol for the warrant of law and power of the emperor" (Sevenster 30-31).

So though the Synoptic version looks similar to Saying 100, it really is not. Firstly, it supports the anti-Jewish, pro-Roman political tendencies of the New Testament. Secondly, it politicizes Jesus' saying and removes the spiritual element from it. Thirdly, it removes the implication in Saying 100 that Jesus might consider himself above God. And fourthly, it continues the obsession with violence, aggression and conflict that is endemic in the Synoptic Gospels.

(The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas - Detlev Koepke, p.191, my bold)
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: What do you think about this strange quote from Karl Kautsky?

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:46 am
Chris Hansen wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:32 pm Perhaps on a mythicist paradigm akin to Thomas Brodie's literary character hypothesis were correct and that he was assembled using the same literary techniques in some early ur-gospel, which then the Synoptics attempt to respond to and redact by reshaping him, though retaining some leftover remains of his rebellious philosophy.

Again, requires a hypothetical document, at which point the theory would have about as much reliability as Ehrman's "hey Q proves Jesus" arguments, but I don't know of any other way, unless we conceptualize some celestial realm where Jesus rebels against celestial Romans and is celestially crucified by celestial Romans when his rebellion fails.
The document is not hypothetical, we have it. The so-called gospel of Thomas is polemic from beginning to end. Just for starters, the third saying:

Logion 3
IS said: if they should say it to you, they who go before you: "lo behold, the reign of king in the heaven", Well then the birds will make be first to you of the heaven.
If they should say it to you: "she in the Sea", well then the fishes will make be first to you.
Rather, the reign of king is of your inside and she is of your eye.
Whenever you should know you Then they will know you, and you will understand: yourselves are the children of the living father.
If it befall However you will know you not, well then you are existing in a reign of poor and yourselves are the reign of poor.

What one are you saying isn't hypothetical? The one I made up or Q? Probably gonna get lambasted by you again, but I am with Goodacre. I think Thomas likely is a much later document that makes use of the Synoptics.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: What do you think about this strange quote from Karl Kautsky?

Post by mlinssen »

Chris Hansen wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:11 am
mlinssen wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:46 am
Chris Hansen wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:32 pm Perhaps on a mythicist paradigm akin to Thomas Brodie's literary character hypothesis were correct and that he was assembled using the same literary techniques in some early ur-gospel, which then the Synoptics attempt to respond to and redact by reshaping him, though retaining some leftover remains of his rebellious philosophy.

Again, requires a hypothetical document, at which point the theory would have about as much reliability as Ehrman's "hey Q proves Jesus" arguments, but I don't know of any other way, unless we conceptualize some celestial realm where Jesus rebels against celestial Romans and is celestially crucified by celestial Romans when his rebellion fails.
The document is not hypothetical, we have it. The so-called gospel of Thomas is polemic from beginning to end. Just for starters, the third saying:

Logion 3
IS said: if they should say it to you, they who go before you: "lo behold, the reign of king in the heaven", Well then the birds will make be first to you of the heaven.
If they should say it to you: "she in the Sea", well then the fishes will make be first to you.
Rather, the reign of king is of your inside and she is of your eye.
Whenever you should know you Then they will know you, and you will understand: yourselves are the children of the living father.
If it befall However you will know you not, well then you are existing in a reign of poor and yourselves are the reign of poor.

What one are you saying isn't hypothetical? The one I made up or Q? Probably gonna get lambasted by you again, but I am with Goodacre. I think Thomas likely is a much later document that makes use of the Synoptics.
You keep surprising me in the way that you think that the mere mention of you(r) thinking comes across as convincing in any way.
"I think the sun is cold" - that is not very convincing, or is it?

I have read Goodacre, as I have read pretty much everything else on Thomas, and it as flimsy and unsubstantiated as DeConick's general work on Thomas. I even wrote a little about it, right here:

viewtopic.php?p=125007#p125007

and

viewtopic.php?p=125009#p125009

and

viewtopic.php?p=125010#p125010
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: What do you think about this strange quote from Karl Kautsky?

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:08 am
mlinssen wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:46 am The so-called gospel of Thomas is polemic from beginning to end.
I read:


The New Testament gives the basic story found in Saying 100 but it extends it quite a bit in a noticeably ideological direction. The most important difference is that the Synoptics (Mark 12:13-17, Matt 22:15-22, Luke 20:22-26) place the question in the mouths of the Pharisees, along with the Herodians, and have them plot how to entrap Jesus in a seditious statement so that the Romans would punish him. They show Jesus as seeing through their "malice" and "hypocrisy" and devising his answer to be a clever response that could not be accused of being seditious. Jesus' answer is also worded differently: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's". And the last part of Thomas 100 is missing, "give me what is mine." Amazingly, the Synoptics succeed in turning Jesus' message on its

Amazingly, the Synoptics succeed in turning Jesus' message on its head: instead of having him give a slyly subversive message that tells people not to pay their taxes, they invert it into its reactionary opposite.

By leaving out Thomas' third part and changing the verb, they make Jesus essentially tell people to respect the authority of the Roman or any state, as long as they also do their religious duties. Christian theologians usually reject attempts by people like Schweitzer to see his answer as ironic and insist, as Sevenster does, that Jesus is being dead serious here: "the coin with its inscription is a symbol for the warrant of law and power of the emperor" (Sevenster 30-31).

So though the Synoptic version looks similar to Saying 100, it really is not. Firstly, it supports the anti-Jewish, pro-Roman political tendencies of the New Testament. Secondly, it politicizes Jesus' saying and removes the spiritual element from it. Thirdly, it removes the implication in Saying 100 that Jesus might consider himself above God. And fourthly, it continues the obsession with violence, aggression and conflict that is endemic in the Synoptic Gospels.

(The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas - Detlev Koepke, p.191, my bold)
Yes, I failed to see Koepke's argument with regards to the bold part; logion 100 is nuclear in the sense that Thomas indeed juxtaposes god and Caesar as mere deities who need their petty sacrifices, even if that be gold.
But he is spot on with his
By leaving out Thomas' third part and changing the verb, they make Jesus essentially tell people to respect the authority of the Roman or any state, as long as they also do their religious duties.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: What do you think about this strange quote from Karl Kautsky?

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:39 am
Chris Hansen wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:11 am
mlinssen wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:46 am
Chris Hansen wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:32 pm Perhaps on a mythicist paradigm akin to Thomas Brodie's literary character hypothesis were correct and that he was assembled using the same literary techniques in some early ur-gospel, which then the Synoptics attempt to respond to and redact by reshaping him, though retaining some leftover remains of his rebellious philosophy.

Again, requires a hypothetical document, at which point the theory would have about as much reliability as Ehrman's "hey Q proves Jesus" arguments, but I don't know of any other way, unless we conceptualize some celestial realm where Jesus rebels against celestial Romans and is celestially crucified by celestial Romans when his rebellion fails.
The document is not hypothetical, we have it. The so-called gospel of Thomas is polemic from beginning to end. Just for starters, the third saying:

Logion 3
IS said: if they should say it to you, they who go before you: "lo behold, the reign of king in the heaven", Well then the birds will make be first to you of the heaven.
If they should say it to you: "she in the Sea", well then the fishes will make be first to you.
Rather, the reign of king is of your inside and she is of your eye.
Whenever you should know you Then they will know you, and you will understand: yourselves are the children of the living father.
If it befall However you will know you not, well then you are existing in a reign of poor and yourselves are the reign of poor.

What one are you saying isn't hypothetical? The one I made up or Q? Probably gonna get lambasted by you again, but I am with Goodacre. I think Thomas likely is a much later document that makes use of the Synoptics.
You keep surprising me in the way that you think that the mere mention of you(r) thinking comes across as convincing in any way.
"I think the sun is cold" - that is not very convincing, or is it?

I have read Goodacre, as I have read pretty much everything else on Thomas, and it as flimsy and unsubstantiated as DeConick's general work on Thomas. I even wrote a little about it, right here:

viewtopic.php?p=125007#p125007

and

viewtopic.php?p=125009#p125009

and

viewtopic.php?p=125010#p125010
I don't mean it as convincing at all. I don't give two rips about trying to convince you of anything. Don't really even care about having a conversation with you. You've been nothing but continuously rude to me, so I just don't even care to try. I'm here to converse with Guiseppe.
Post Reply